Skip to content
Jacob De Jesus

#21Jacob De Jesus

WR·UNLV·2024

Jacob De Jesus is a Versatile WR for UNLV. Jacob's 2024 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 56 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

What projects, and what doesn't · WRs · held out 2019-2025

How well one season predicts the next, measured on seasons the model never trained on. 1.00 would be perfectly predictable; 0.00 means last year told us nothing.

  • Usage share (volume)0.47
    Beats guessing the WR average by 16%. n=6,302 WR seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.09
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=5,767 WR seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.45
    Beats guessing the WR average by 12%. n=5,767 WR seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Jacob De Jesus's projection is a projection of opportunity — how much of the offense he runs through. How well he converts it is something this model does not claim to know a year in advance, and the number above is why.

2024 Production

Rushing
101 Rush yards0 Rush TD18 Carries5.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
36 Receptions512 Rec yards3 Rec TD14.2 Yards/rec
Returns
9 Kick returns190 KR yards0 KR TD25 Punt returns252 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume19
  • Explosiveness48
  • Consistency80
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Versatile WR

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency80th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 10 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.34 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.83 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Utah State (SP+ -10).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand deals.

Tier is a model estimate based on position, school brand, performance rank, and usage — not a reported deal. NIL deals are private. For a real market valuation, see On3's NIL profile, which factors in social following and actual deal tracking.

Historical Comparables · WR · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.8301.83Wk 1 vs Houston: +0.58 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Utah Tech: +1.23 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kansas: +0.11 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Fresno State: +1.25 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Syracuse: +0.87 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Utah State: +1.83 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Oregon State: +0.95 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Boise State: +0.95 EPA/play9Wk 12 vs San Diego State: +0.58 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs San José State: -0.47 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Nevada: +1.15 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Boise State: +0.98 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@HoustonW27-7-8.234214.02240.58
2vsUtah TechW72-1413636.00361.23
3vsKansasW23-204.9166.0060.11
5vsFresno StateW59-14-3.825025.00341.25
6vsSyracuseL41-445.54399.80160.87
7@Utah StateW50-34-10.424924.50371.83
8@Oregon StateW33-25-6.747117.80430.95
9vsBoise StateL24-2910.1166.0060.95
12vsSan Diego StateW41-20-15.477510.70250.58
13@San José StateW27-16-5.51-2-2.000-0.47
14vsNevadaW38-14-15.268414.00301.15
15@Boise StateL7-2110.12189.00100.98
20vsCaliforniaW24-134.023819.0129

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.8%
Passing plays
13.9%
Rushing plays
2.8%
Standard downs
7.0%
Passing downs
6.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.74
Passing downs
0.43
Pass / Rush EPA
0.90 / -0.01

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.